 |
|
RE: this one?
Posted on: August 19, 2022 at 09:52:58 CT
Wildcat KSU
Posts:
29042
Member For:
25.07 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
Where's your source-snob persona gone off to?
RealClearPolitics' Fact Check Review found that in July 2018, 90% of Snopes fact checks cited other media sources instead of consulting primary sources for fact checks.
Some, such as Jerome William Berglund, writing at Medium, have said that Snopes creates strawmen arguments, which it then "deunks." Others, such as pro-life site Life News, have accused Snopes of being a "mouthpiece for liberal Democrats."
Investors Business Daily writes of Snopes,
"We had firsthand experience with errant fact checks when Snopes published one in April claiming that IBD had "resuscitated" a "false" claim about 3.5 million more registered voters than eligible voters. In fact, we'd published that editorial eight months earlier — as was obvious from the time stamp on the article itself. (It went viral this spring on Facebook.) Snopes later rewrote that section of its fact check — but never acknowledged its original mistake. It also changed the ruling on the underlying claims from "false" to "mixture."
At Evie Magazine, Brook Conrad writes:
"Snopes also takes on a more opinionated and critical tone in its analyses than most news media outlets.
The result is a lot of recycled information, repackaged as a judgment call on whether or not the story was true. A perfect example was the recent Snopes analysis on the sex trafficking allegations against Wayfair, an online furniture and home-goods company. Social media users claimed that certain items on Wayfair’s website were overpriced as a disguise for selling children. The names of some pieces of furniture, for example, could be matched with children who recently went missing.
Snopes labeled the Wayfair allegations as objectively “false,” but its investigation into the sex trafficking claims depended heavily on personal suspicions and theories. “The more we pondered this claim, the more nonsensical it appeared,” Snopes author Dan Evon wrote of the allegation. “Would a large business really use their official website to allow people to purchase children online?”
The author went on to cite Wayfair’s statement that “[t]here is, of course, no truth to these claims,” and wrote off specific allegations by simply noting that they originated on Reddit forums, not police reports.
RealClearPolitics' Fact Check Review found that in July 2018, 90% of Snopes fact checks cited other media sources instead of consulting primary sources for fact checks.
Some, such as Jerome William Berglund, writing at Medium, have said that Snopes creates strawmen arguments, which it then "deunks." Others, such as pro-life site Life News, have accused Snopes of being a "mouthpiece for liberal Democrats."
Investors Business Daily writes of Snopes,
"We had firsthand experience with errant fact checks when Snopes published one in April claiming that IBD had "resuscitated" a "false" claim about 3.5 million more registered voters than eligible voters. In fact, we'd published that editorial eight months earlier — as was obvious from the time stamp on the article itself. (It went viral this spring on Facebook.) Snopes later rewrote that section of its fact check — but never acknowledged its original mistake. It also changed the ruling on the underlying claims from "false" to "mixture."
At Evie Magazine, Brook Conrad writes:
"Snopes also takes on a more opinionated and critical tone in its analyses than most news media outlets.
The result is a lot of recycled information, repackaged as a judgment call on whether or not the story was true. A perfect example was the recent Snopes analysis on the sex trafficking allegations against Wayfair, an online furniture and home-goods company. Social media users claimed that certain items on Wayfair’s website were overpriced as a disguise for selling children. The names of some pieces of furniture, for example, could be matched with children who recently went missing.
Snopes labeled the Wayfair allegations as objectively “false,” but its investigation into the sex trafficking claims depended heavily on personal suspicions and theories. “The more we pondered this claim, the more nonsensical it appeared,” Snopes author Dan Evon wrote of the allegation. “Would a large business really use their official website to allow people to purchase children online?”
The author went on to cite Wayfair’s statement that “[t]here is, of course, no truth to these claims,” and wrote off specific allegations by simply noting that they originated on Reddit forums, not police reports.
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
- 
RE: this one? - Wildcat KSU - 8/19 09:52:58